If you missed the earlier installments, you can find them here:

Part XII: Ping Pong and Royal Assent

Part XI: From the Committee Stage to the Third Reading in the House of Lords

Read more

These words, written by St. Paul to the church in Corinth nearly 2,000 years ago, seem entirely apposite to the current political situation. Anyone sensible knows that either the trumpet needs retuning or we need a new trumpeter, as we must prepare for battle. Yet nothing is being done.

The army has cancelled live ammunition training for want of £30 million, an unimaginably trivial sum in terms of total government expenditure. It is like the nursery rhyme about losing the war all for the want of a horseshoe nail. The real defence budget is not the 2.6% boasted about by the government, but about two-thirds of that amount. Pensions paid out to retired soldiers are included in that figure. And as with so much of the government’s pensions payroll, it is done on a pay as you go system, so that no fund has been built up to pay them, as would be mandatory in the private sector.

The budget also includes the cost of GCHQ and of MI6, both of which are different forms of defence. Even worse, as I discovered as a Minister in the Cabinet Office, it includes useless duplicative committees within the very viscera of the administration. After all these deductions from the 2.6%, £30 million suddenly becomes an unaffordable cost in a nation whose economy is over £3 trillion and whose government spending is £1.3 trillion.

This leaves the realm essentially exposed. Earlier in the year, there was hope that this would be dealt with, as the then Defence Secretary resigned and was subsequently promoted to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unfortunately, John Healey has turned out to be a run-of-the-mill political opportunist, rather than the principled statesman he appeared to be in June.

No extra money has been found and the promises of increased expenditure stretch out into distant parliaments after at least two elections, when none of the people making the promises will still be in office. This is disastrous, as the threats are clear and come in battalions, not as single spies.

Russia is the biggest and most obvious. Its failure in Ukraine seems to be making it an even more unpredictable opponent, with a recent cyber-attack on a German airport showing its increased aggression and willingness to test the boundaries of NATO’s resolve. The same people who warned that Russia was about to attack Ukraine and were widely ignored are now sounding the alarm for further attacks. How could the United Kingdom respond?

Read more

Thomas Fuller, in his History of the Worthies of England (1662), did not see any great virtue in St Dunstan. In a religiously intolerant age, Fuller merely noted his posts, Abbot of Glastonbury, Bishop of London and of Worcester, Archbishop of Canterbury, and “last for his promoting monkery reputed a saint”.

Fuller was seemingly not interested either in Dunstan’s success as a religious reformer or his influence as a secular adviser, even though he was preeminent in both areas in his comparatively long life, which included a golden age for England.

Dunstan’s earliest miracle preceded his birth, according to Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend. His mother was in church for Candlemas when all the candles went out, but hers relit miraculously and was used to relight everyone else’s, “wherefore all the people gave laud and thankings unto our Lord God for this great miracle”.

Dunstan’s father Heorstan was an important Somerset nobleman whose land shared a border with that of Glastonbury Abbey, which is where he sent Dunstan to be educated. He was linked to the Royal Court via a number of family relationships, but was too studious for his boisterous fellow nobles, and seems to have been bullied until he left for the calm of his kinsman, Ælfheah, Bishop of Winchester’s household.

The Bishop tried to encourage him in his vocation, hoping that he would become a monk, but Dunstan resisted until a serious illness persuaded him to change his mind. This led Dunstan back to Glastonbury, where he took religious life seriously. He built himself a cell, five feet by two and a half feet, for his oratory and also as a workshop. He became a skilled smith and is now the patron saint of blacksmiths and goldsmiths.

This was the site of his most famous miracle, when he caught hold of the devil with a pair of fire tongs. As the Golden Legend says, “never after the devil had lust to tempt him”.

Read more

Standards of behaviour among politicians have been an increasingly fraught issue since the 1990s. Cash for questions, back to basics and the expenses scandal all seemed to indicate a degree of venality among Members of Parliament, who are supposed to be public servants.

This has led to a series of attempts to change the way Parliament investigates and responds to breaches of various codes. It is currently divided into two main parts, excluding expenses and privileges, both of which ultimately end up in the Chamber of the House.

Personal contact is governed by the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS). It covers bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, and covers all pass holders in the Palace of Westminster. Most complaints to the ICGS, indeed the overwhelming majority, do not involve Members of Parliament themselves, but inevitably and rightly these are the ones that receive the greatest attention.

In this process, if someone makes a complaint, it is subject to an initial assessment, where people working for the ICGS will decide if there is enough evidence to go further. If there is, it passes to a full assessment, which is an investigation that interviews witnesses and reports to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who will then decide whether the Member of Parliament is guilty and, if so, what level of sanction ought to be imposed.

The most serious sanctions are decided by an independent expert panel (IEP) , which may recommend a suspension or even expulsion from the House. The IEP also hears appeals from both the complainant and the respondent to any complaint. Unlike in the court system, the complainant has a right of appeal.

Breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, which covers declarations of interest and includes the Nolan Principles, are handled differently. It is this process that currently has Nigel Farage in its claws. In these cases, the Commissioner for Standards will initially investigate, and may then decide that there is no case to answer. This happened on a number of occasions to me when politically motivated complaints were made. The Commissioner may determine the issue by requiring rectification, which could involve an apology, while more serious cases may be referred to the Committee on Standards.

Read more

Read more

One of the reasons that the Conservatives failed and were removed from office so resoundingly in 2024 is that we stopped arguing for our own beliefs and accepted many of the nostrums of the left.

Some of this was linguistic, the word ‘progressive’ was used in a positive way, as were similar words such as ‘modernise’. Politically correct terminology was accepted so that the word ‘they’ now seems to be used as both a plural and a singular term in the same way that the word ‘you’ is. Language is important as it sets the parameters of debate, what may or may not be said, and how it ought to be phrased.

However, it was not only linguistic niceties that were accepted by the Conservatives. The state and politicians also became hostile to abundance. Business, in principle, has always favoured abundance as it leads to profits. But this became seen as selfish and a poor use of resources from the early 1990s onwards.

Governments aimed to restrict the use of energy and to ration infrastructure because it helped their equalising agenda. This made everybody equally poor, and it was in fact a deeply socialist project dressed up as environmentalism. This has led to rationing and an expectation of limited usage as a virtue, as if we were limited by wartime restrictions.

This summer has shown it most clearly in two areas, both of which have led to discomfort for millions of people. The first is water. Not only hosepipe bans, but bossy instructions to have a shower rather than a bath. This is nonsense and entirely a matter of governmental choice. There is plenty of water in this country and no need to use it carefully. The marginal cost of a gallon of water is negligible. It is all about infrastructure.

Read more

A reminder that you can earn rewards by referring friends. For instance, if you can encourage three friends to subscribe, you will receive a month’s paid subscription. For more details please see the Leaderboard page.

Refer a friend

Your comments would be most welcome. Please click the button to join the conversation. Thank you.

Leave a comment

Every day stories abound that indicate decay and failure. Those in power, however often they are reshuffled, seem unable to answer the questions, or find that they do not have the authority that they thought they did to change things. Andy Burnham is the latest to discover that he pulls the levers of power, says ‘go’, and instead of his servant going, his servant says, ‘I cannot’.

In the last week, the failures include the inability to ensure that PC Andrew Harper’s killers remain in prison to serve their sentences, even though the Prime Minister wants this to happen. Cambridge University has been humiliated by the award of a professorship to Jason Arday and the subsequent attempt to accuse his critics of racism. Electricity companies have told people not to use electricity during a solar eclipse, and small boat arrivals have become large boat arrivals.

All of this indicates a broken Britain. Yet there are clear underlying causes that have led to all of this happening. It is not that Britain is ungovernable, or that the particular problems are not solvable. It is, in its way, rather worse. We have chosen not to be governed.

Every one of the failures listed above comes from a legislative cause, from legislation that is designed to be ‘entrenched’, a concept that has traditionally been alien to the British Constitution. The three main culprits are the Human Rights Act 1999, the Climate Change Act 2007 and the Equality Act of 2010. Each one of these has overarching powers used to ensure that future government action is in accordance with them, so limiting discretion and making the levers of power fail, because the connecting wires have been cut.

Until the European Court ruled against it and the system was changed following its orders, the final decision to release prisoners was, in certain circumstances, made by the Home Secretary. This was a political as well as a judicial decision, to retain confidence in the criminal justice system. It applied especially to murder cases and had a compelling logic.

When the death penalty still existed, the ability to exercise the prerogative of mercy lay with the Crown, which for routine purposes meant the Home Secretary. Thus, when death was replaced with a whole life term, it logically followed that the ability to release should continue to lie with the same person.

The European Court of Human Rights thought otherwise. Jealously guarding the power of the judiciary, it ruled that such decisions could not properly be made by Ministers, but had to be made by a judge on sentencing, to protect the human rights of murderers. This means that the Sentencing Act 2026 could not give any Ministerial discretion over release dates. Hence the Government faced a conundrum, about which it has not been entirely honest.

While I accept that the Prime Minister does not want PC Harper’s killers released, the Labour Government he now leads essentially accepted David Gauke’s report, and its recommendations to reduce the amount of time served in prison. It has used the excuse of overcrowding to stop short sentences of under twelve months, and to switch other sentences to one third incarceration, one third place surveillance and one third release on licence.

This is a policy choice which the Government has not been willing to defend, as it is not popular and probably will not be successful. This dishonesty, or ‘spin’ to be generous, means that extending the excluded categories not only has a short-term disadvantage of keeping more prisoners in gaol, but it also undermines the unadmitted policy change.

This prevents the easy solution of all perpetrators of manslaughter from being kept in prison, because it undermines the new policy. Naturally, the government does not want to admit this. An even easier solution would have been to add Ministerial discretion to the Sentencing Act to allow individual prisoners to be kept in gaol, but the Human Rights Act prevents that from happening.

The next recent example relates to Cambridge University and Jason Arday. It is, fundamentally, a consequence of the Public Sector Equality Duty, which is required under the Equality Act 2010. Every decision a public body makes needs to bear in mind equality consideration, and it creates an implicit expectation that there will be equity, that is to say equality of outcome, in the appointments process.

This means that institutions, and Cambridge will not be alone, need to weight their processes to encourage applicants from minorities. In other words, they create an equalities bias that is, in itself, discriminatory.

Jason Arday, in that context, was manna from heaven. He ticked so many boxes at once, both on race and disability, that the fact that he was a fantasist was ignored. The consequences of this were of no concern to the bureaucracy at the University, because he made them look good. And so they encouraged his fantasy by promoting him, not just within the university, but in publicity materials as well. He was an invaluable public relations tool, regardless of the effect on students, whose interests seem to have been wholly overlooked. Until, of course, he was exposed, and the University looked completely foolish.

DEI, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, has grown up since the Equality Act and is a pernicious form of discrimination. Again, it is legislated for and has an overriding force, so that lawmakers must consider it when making future laws. It is, thus far, a successful attempt at ‘entrenched’ legislation.

Another is the 2007 Climate Change Act, and its secondary offshoots, such as the statutory instrument that made net zero by 2050 a legal target. This Act has destroyed a once highly efficient electricity system.

In 2000, industrial electricity prices were in line with those in America. Now they are four times higher. This is a consequence of concentrating on renewables which, by their very nature, are unreliable. The wind does not always blow, nor the sun shine. This is not just during the rare occasions when there are solar eclipses. In the winter there is very little sunshine and a high demand for electricity. So backup plans are essential, which are extremely expensive.

This has made British industry uncompetitive and has led to manufacturing moving offshore, which has the effect of increasing total emissions, whilst reducing those for which Britain is technically responsible, alongside, of course, reducing employment in this country.

Yet the folly of the Climate Change Act has meant that a gas-driven energy policy would be illegal, and even exploring for more oil and gas has run into problems in the courts because of this Act. Once more, it is a semi-entrenched Act, that seeks to influence policy well beyond the strict confines of energy. It affects building regulations and infrastructure projects as well as many others.

Small boats becoming big boats is a similar problem to that of prison releases. It is a consequence of the Human Rights Act that the country is prohibited from taking the steps that would be necessary to stop the boats. Everything else is a palliative, whereas swift deportation would be a real cure.

The court cases that the last Conservative government lost in this area are a reminder of the problems even with a government that really wanted to solve illegal migration, rather than our current administration, that is supported by many people who really believe in open borders.

It is this legislative straitjacket that means the levers of power do not work, but there is a solution. Parliament can try to bind its successors, but it is a matter of constitutional fact that it cannot succeed. All three of these Acts, Human Rights, Climate Change and Equality, could be repealed or annulled. This would restore control to Ministers, who would still be answerable to Parliament and to the electorate for their decisions.

In all constitutions there must be a balance between democratic and judicial decision-making. Historically, the United Kingdom depended upon Ministers to make decisions, and judges to concentrate on what the law meant. Recently, laws have reversed this, to take swathes of decision making away from Ministers to give it to judges. Hence Andy Burnham cannot keep two bad men in prison.

The pendulum has swung too far and needs to swing back. The tools to make it swing are in the Prime Minister and Parliament’s hands.

A reminder that you can earn rewards by referring friends. For instance, if you can encourage three friends to subscribe, you will receive a month’s paid subscription. For more details please see the Leaderboard page.

Refer a friend

Your comments would be most welcome. Please click the button to join the conversation. Thank you.

Leave a comment

If you have a question, on any subject, whether politics or Pongo, please put it in the comments below.

Thank you.

Leave a comment

Read more

Proposals for reform of the House of Lords have been discussed since the 19^th century, and some important ones have been implemented. The 1911 Parliament Act is the most significant of these, but the introduction of life peers in 1958 and the removal of hereditary peers in 1999 and 2026 are also noteworthy.

Yet there remain pressures for further change, not because of any identified failure in the Lords, but because of the feeling that it is not validated by a democratic mandate. Although the Parliament Act says in its preamble that it is a temporary measure until a democratic means of selecting an upper house is found, in the 115 years since it passed, no such method has been implemented.

This ought to change the argument. What matters about the House of Lords is not its legitimacy. The totality of the government in the United Kingdom is legitimate, and has popular support, but the question should be whether the Lords fulfils a useful function and leads to better government. On the whole, in light of its powers, it does achieve this. It also recognises the limitation of its powers as a consequence of the greater democratic legitimacy of the Commons.

This makes Lisvane’s thoughts about how the Commons works all the more interesting. It has power and legitimacy, which it ought to use well, but many would say it does so ineffectually. Lisvane argues that having so many new MPs has made the House of Commons less good at scrutinising legislation, and this is probably true, but I think the problem is more deep-seated.

Read more

If you missed the earlier installments, you can find them here:

Part X: The Second Reading in the House of…

Read more

Almost every proposed change to the voting system is carried out with the intention of improving the prospects of the party that introduces the change. The Tories favour overseas voting and voter identification, while Labour wants to lower the voting age and encourage postal voting. The Lib Dems, since they lost power, have been great advocates for proportional representation, but when last in majority government, they opposed it.

The latest battleground is compulsory voting, which some think tanks close to Andy Burnham advocate.

It is not, in principle, wrong to ask citizens to carry out certain actions that are needed for the good of the state as a whole. In both world wars, it was accepted not only that men could be conscripted into the armed forces, but that labour could be directed by the authority of the state. Similarly, one of the great jewels of the constitutional settlement, trial by jury, is dependent upon compulsory attendance by citizens who have not volunteered and are chosen effectively by lot.

Are these comparable to voting? Conscription for war is not. It has only been done in the case of dire necessity, although national service continued for a few years after the Second World War had ended. Failure to vote does not threaten the stability of the nation.

It is more akin to jury service, when the needs of the community are placed above those of the individual in a very specific context. Jurors are required so that justice may both be done and be seen to be done, maintaining confidence in the system and preventing an overmighty state from taking people’s liberty, without a chance to show their innocence to an independent group. As with voting, it requires a decision to be made, and simply not wanting to turn up is not a valid excuse for avoiding the service.

Read more

The Daily Telegraph, the journal of conservatism, has been arguing about the merits of net zero this week, with two main articles in favour and two against. Each of the authors is distinguished and worth reading, especially as in the case of Tim Stanley when writing something unexpected.

Lord Frost made the case against net zero with, to my mind, clinical efficiency, Ambrose Evans Pritchard returned to the fray with verve, while Allister Heath was uncharacteristically optimistic. In light of this I thought I should join the discussion and start with a basic principle of conservatism.

There is a strong argument that the origins of the two-party system are to be found in the 17th century civil war between the Royalists, who were the founding Tories, and the Parliamentarians, who were the original Whigs (in spite of Dr Johnson’s quip that the Devil was the first Whig). The Whigs subsequently became the socialists, and the net zero argument fits neatly within their worldview.

The Royalists accepted the imperfect world as it was, while the Parliamentarians believed they could create a new city upon a hill. In theological terms, it may perhaps simplistically be seen as a divide between Thomists and Augustinians.

Conservatives recognise the limitations of mankind’s ability to change the world. There are forces that are stronger, be they divine or natural, which mock man’s efforts. An example of this is that one of the consequences of reducing pollutants in the air is that more sunshine comes through, and this has made Europe hotter than the parts of the world that have not cleaned up their atmospheres.

This is not to oppose the reduction of pollutants in the air; it has been a thoroughly good thing to do, as dirty air was responsible for killing people, or at least bringing about early death. Yet this well-intentioned and good effect has led to more intense heat waves, which is clearly not something the advocates of clean air wanted.

It is a reminder that man is not as powerful as he sometimes thinks, and is certainly not omniscient. “Man proposes, God disposes”, as Thomas à Kempis said.

This limitation of capability is an essential part of the Tory makeup. Realising that it will not be possible to do certain things, therefore there is no point in trying. Often this has been moral rather than ecological. In the 17th century the Puritans thought that godly living would ensure that a perfect world would be created. Many of them also expected that the second coming would occur and they needed to be ready for it. With the Restoration in 1660, all of this piety was washed away in a sea of licentiousness.

Read more

While I was an MP, I often went to village fetes with my children and, mainly thanks to the generosity of the stall holders, they would win blow up toys; hammers and swords and such like. For a few days they would be much used, sometimes even to launch an attack on me, but they would then deflate and be of no further use.

I fear this government is proving to be one of these toys, and is losing its air even faster than they did. This is regrettable, as the country needs decent government and a sense that the new leader is in control.

The failures started almost immediately after Andy Burnham had kissed hands. A schedule of sackings and appointments was promised to the media and not met. Delays began to creep in as the hours went by and the plans, such as they were, failed to take shape. The reshuffle was a mix of vengeance and hubris, showing a lack of care and attention, with important roles being offered about as if they were mere baubles, rather than instrumental in running the country.

The best example of this is the treatment of Rachel Reeves. It is not unkind, merely truthful, to say that she was not a success at the Treasury. It proved to be beyond her, but it is one of the most difficult jobs in government, so failing as the Chancellor is not a particular disgrace. However, when the nation faces a serious security threat, the Defence Secretary is even more important, so to offer this role to someone who had failed is rather scandalous. It shows a shameful disregard for the security of the nation, and raises questions about the seriousness with which Burnham approaches not just defence, but the whole of government. Is it just an elaborate game for him?

Vengeance was shown by the number of loyal Starmer supporters who were fired. On his election as leader, Burnham called for unity and an end to factionism, a call he repeated at the beginning of his first cabinet meeting. But he started his term in office by promoting his faction and damning everyone else. This is the same mistake Liz Truss made when she became Prime Minister. She hardly appointed anyone who had backed Rishi Sunak, which was an error. They included, among their number, some able people who then had little to do on the backbenches other than to plot against her. Burnham is taking the same risk.

The new Prime Minister, who has been spinning his spider’s web in Manchester to entrap and devour Starmer, will find his appeals for unity now fall on deaf ears, as he has not shown the magnanimity that is worthy of his high office. In a mean-spirited reshuffle he has sown the seeds of dissent, which will be husbanded by any policy failures or missteps that Prime Ministers inevitably make.

Read more

If you missed the earlier installments, you can find them here:

Part IX: The First Reading in the House of Lords

Part VIII: …

Read more

This has remained in my mind after listening on Friday to Andy Burnham’s first speech as leader of the Labour Party, for it failed in its structure, content, and delivery. As I want the country to be well-governed, I wish Andy Burnham well, and therefore hoped for some inspiration from his opening words. But it was a poor specimen of the politician’s craft, so I thought it worth writing about how to make a speech.

Our ancestors attached great importance to rhetoric. It was studied, and taught by Aristotle and Cicero. This interest continued down the ages, so that Thomas Hobbes, the famous philosopher, wrote a book entitled The Art of Rhetoric (1637).

Yet the modern age seems less concerned with it, to the detriment of political life. In his books, Hobbes set out the four points of a speech: the Proeme, the Propositions, the Proofs, and the Epilogue. He described the Proeme as resembling an overture in music or the prologue of a play. It introduces and sets the tone.

Read more

On the 250th anniversary of the United States, I thought it might be interesting to compare its Constitution with our own. In many ways, the American Constitution is an attempt to perfect and purify the British one. It is an enlightenment experiment in the perfectibility of rational beings, as opposed to the untidy reality of an old Constitution.

The framers of the American Constitution were heavily influenced by Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers. He had been concerned that liberty was at risk whenever the executive, legislature and judiciary were in the hands of the same people. Hence, this was prohibited by the new Constitution.

Interestingly, Montesquieu thought he was describing the British Constitution, but he clearly was not. However, his understanding encouraged the Founding Fathers, many of whom believed themselves to be English gentlemen who were being treated badly by the Crown, and needed to re-establish their rights.

What this meant in practice was that in America the various arms of government are entirely separate. Government ministers do not sit in Congress, with the exception of the Vice President, who has a casting vote in the Senate, and any congressman who becomes a minister has to resign his seat. The judiciary is again separate, and although subject to confirmation hearings in the Senate, as are ministers, they do not sit or engage with Congress.

As the American Constitution is codified, the ultimate arbiter of it is the US Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers were nervous of democracy, so made changing the Constitution difficult, so that in most cases the judges’ verdicts are final and can overrule the democratic part of the system. This has made the judiciary highly political, and appointments to it are made by presidents on the basis of party affiliation. This has had the effect of making the Supreme Court extremely powerful, but it does not always follow the desires of its own political side.

The recent case on birth citizenship is an example of a case that went against the president, in spite of the Republican majority on the Supreme Court. This is particularly interesting, as the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which gives birthright citizenship, was a post-Civil War change that gave citizenship to black Americans, which they had been denied by the Dred Scott judgment of the Supreme Court in 1857¹.

Read more

St. John Fisher was martyred two weeks before St Thomas More, on 22nd June 1535, and each year that day is now set aside to commemorate these two saints. In the Sarum Rite used by the Catholic Church at that time, it was the feast of St. Alban, the proto-martyr of England. The two men went to their deaths for the same fault in the eyes of Henry VIII. But while More is widely celebrated, Fisher has been broadly forgotten, yet his martyrdom was equally worthy.

Fisher was born around 1459. The argument for this early date is that the portrait of him by Holbein puts his age at 74, and cannot have been painted while he was in the Tower of London, so an age at death of 76 seems probable. He was the son of Robert and Agnes, who seem to have been fairly prosperous, and was born in Beverley in Yorkshire. He certainly showed in his life the gritty determination associated with that county.

Fisher was primarily a scholar and cleric, but via Henry VII’s mother, Margaret Beaufort, he came to national prominence. He greatly admired Margaret and was her spiritual adviser from 1497, when he was appointed her confessor, until her death shortly after Henry VIII’s succession to the throne.

It was through her influence that Henry VII promoted him in 1504 to be Bishop of Rochester, one of the poorest bishoprics, and he did so after seeking Margaret’s permission. Henry wrote to his mother, saying that he did not wish to offend her by appointing her confessor, but he did so because he had had heard of Fisher’s “great and singular virtue… especially his good and virtuous living and conversation”.

That Fisher lived virtuously was borne out after his imprisonment in the Tower, when the king’s men raided his living quarters. The only items of value they found were plate for liturgical use and books which they wantonly destroyed. In great excitement they found a locked box in his private oratory, which they took away to open in front of witnesses, expecting to find much treasure within. All they found were a hair shirt and three scourges which Fisher used to purify himself. When informed of this, Fisher said he would have removed them had he not left in such a hurry, for he did not want his piety to be a matter of pride.

As well as being Margaret’s spiritual adviser, Fisher was a senior figure at Cambridge in 1494, when he was the Senior Proctor, becoming Master of Michaelhouse in 1497, and Vice-Chancellor in 1491. At this time, Cambridge was going through one of its phases of listlessness, with little learning and no money. Fisher helped change both of these conditions.

Read more

If you missed the earlier installments, you can find them here:

Part VIII: The Report Stage and Third Reading

Part VII: The C…

Read more